USCA1 Opinion

November 28, 1995

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-1520

ROBERT F. SMITH AND JOANNE M. SMITH,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

NEW HAMPSHIRE BOARD OF LICENSURE FOR LAND SURVEYORS, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Robert F. Smith and Joanne M. Smith on brief pro se.

_______________
_______________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General,
_________________

and Stephen J. Judge, Sen

________________

Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees New Hampshire Bo

of Land Surveyors and Members.
Donald F. Whittum and Cooper, Hall, Whittum & Shillaber, P.C.
_________________
________________________________________
brief for appellee David Richard Noyes.

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

Plaintiffs-appellants filed an amended

complaint under 42

First Amendment,

all

based on

Licensure

U.S.C.

due process and

equal protection

refusal of

New Hampshire

the

to

hold

disciplinary charges

court

dismissed

1983 alleging violations

the

formal

hearing

on

against defendant Noyes.

the

complaint

for

failure

of the

clauses,

Board

of

plaintiffs'

The district

to

state

cognizable claim.

Plaintiffs challenge

the court's ruling

that they

did not plead the deprivation of an interest protected by the

due

process clause.

failed

to recognize

They

say

constitutional

alleged violation of their

a protected

interest

court erroneously

deprivation

in

state law rights to notice

hearing on their disciplinary

if

that the

the

and a

complaint against Noyes.

could be

identified, however,

Even

an

unauthorized deviation from state

the level

the

of a

state

remedy.

1994).

constitutional due process

fails

to

provide

suitable

See Licari v. Ferruzzi, 22

___ ______
________

New

rehearing and

Stat. Ann.

Hampshire law

310-A:71

violation unless

post-deprivation

F.3d 344, 348 (1st Cir.

provides

direct appeal of

subject to rehearing

such a

remedy through

Board orders, see

___

(1995) ("Orders of the board

and appeal in the

RSA 541."); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.

1994),

procedure does not rise to

shall be

manner prescribed by

541:1-541:6 (1974 & Supp.

or petition for an extraordinary writ.

-2-

N.H. Rev.

See N.H. Rev.

___

Stat. Ann.

also

fail

490:4 (1983).

substantially

Plaintiffs' remaining contentions

for

the

reasons

stated

by

the

district court.

Reviewing

the district

the judgment is affirmed.

________

court's decision

de novo,
_______

-3-